This invention pertains to the field of playing cards in general and geography playing cards in particular (U.S. Classification 273/302). Playing cards have been used to amuse and educate human beings since the 14th century. at least. Cards have undergone a number of design improvements but the basic structure of a standard deck of playing cards has endured, unchanged, for many centuries. Even with the advent of exciting new electronic games, playing cards continue to be a popular leisure time activity enjoyed by children and adults alike.
The Standard Playing Card Deck
Structurally, the standard deck of playing cards consists of 52 cards divided into four groups called suits. Cards of one suit are distinguished from the cards of other suits by different suit-marks. The familiar French suit-marks of hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs are most commonly used by American playing card manufacturers. Within a suit, the cards of the standard deck are distinguished from each other by indices of the card's number or rank. The three indices used in the standard deck are Arabic numbers 2-10; court rank: Jack, Queen, and King; and the infamous Ace which is the first card of each suit but is marked with an "A" instead of an one. In addition to the suit cards, many standard decks include one or two Jokers. In many popular card games, Jokers are considered to be wild cards and often have premium value. Although the suit-marks of a deck of cards may vary from country to country, reference to the standard deck, standard playing card deck, or standard playing cards refers to a deck of cards organized, essentially, as just described. The description shows that the standard playing card contains two basic units of information: a suit sign and an indicator of the card's value or rank. Any pictures used on the cards of the standard deck repeat or visually reinforce one or both of these basic units.
Part of the widespread popularity of the standard deck lies in its familiarity. But another part of its charm lies in its case of use. The player only has to concentrate on and distinguish between a few basic units of related information in order to use the deck. Having to utilize only a few basic units of related information enables card play to move at a relatively rapid pace. Another part of the excitement of playing cards with the standard deck lies in the rhythm of repeating a series of fixed, relatively fast paced actions, or variations of these actions. Here again having to utilize only a few units of related information contributes to enjoyment of use. Moreover, a large variety of games of chance can be played with the standard deck. The games range from those that are quite simple to those that are quite complex. Thus, another part of the widespread appeal and long term endurance of the standard deck probably lies in the versatility that is inherent to its simple overall structure.
Non-standard Playing Card Decks: Two Major Types Structurally
The primary function of the standard deck is for use in gaming. Playing card decks featuring novel designs and subject matter have also been produced, however, in large numbers. These decks are referred to as non-standard. The designs or subject matter added to the cards of the standard deck live the deck a function in addition to gaming. Pure art or fancifulness and educational subjects are two of the functions for which non-standard decks have been used most often. Over time, decks devoted to fortune telling, political satire, heraldry, religion, arithmetic, spelling, history, morality, poetry and drama, music, wars, geometry, and geography have been mass produced. Thus, a myriad of various kinds of playing card decks have been developed, over the centuries.
Despite the wide variety in the subject matter addressed by non-standard decks, they may be classified, based on whether or not they employ a suiting scheme, into two major types: suited and unsuited. Suited non-standard decks may be further classified, structurally, based on the type of suiting scheme employed, into two major sub-types: standard suited and non-standard suited decks. Standard-suited non-standard decks utilize the suit marks of the standard deck to organize the deck and structure its use. The various non-standard suited decks utilize a variety of non-standard suiting schemes to organize and structure deck use. The present invention relates to non-standard suited geography playing card decks, in general, and non-standard suited political geography playing card decks, in particular. These decks are beset by a number of problems. Before turning to analysis of these problems, however, a brief overview of the subject matter of the decks, geography, can aid in understanding these problems and, perhaps, suggest solutions for them.
The Science of Geography and Geography Playing Cards
The science of geography is generally concerned with the distribution of contemporary phenomena over the earth. Location, patterns of distribution, and arrangement of phenomena hold a place of central importance in geography. Literally, millions of phenomena are embraced by the field. This vastness makes teaching and learning geography a, somewhat, daunting task, at times. Because knowing the location of a myriad of specific places or things is prerequisite to discerning patterns of distribution or arrangement of phenomena, over the earth, maps are the major organizing tool of the geographer. Three types of maps are utilized. Reference maps are used, similar to encyclopedias, as sources of information. Illustrative maps show the distribution of specific phenomenon or the spatial correlation of two or more phenomena on the surface of the Earth. Analytical maps suggest ideas for testing.
Location: The Foundational Concept of The Science
In a sense, a map may be thought of as an organized compilation of representations of a number of different locations. All location is, however, relative to some other fixed point of reference. Thus, location, itself, is the fundamental concept of geography and the foundation of the science. Location is so important that a specialized system for locating places on the face of the Earth has been developed. This system is, of course, the grid address system formed by intersections of lines of latitude and longitude; with the equator and prime meridian being the fixed points of reference. In this systems places are located in terms of number of degrees north or south of the equator and number of degrees east or west of the prime meridian. Line intersections provide fairly precise locational information, lines of latitude and longitude are thus, point intersection locators. Degrees can be divided into sixtieths or minutes (`) and any location on the planet can be described as being located at a certain number of degrees and minutes of latitude either north or south of the equator and at a certain number of degrees and minutes of longitude either east or west of the prime meridian.
The grid address system is widely utilized on globes and maps. Various cartographers utilize various increments of degrees, but 20 degree increments are most commonly used. Unfortunately, decrees of latitude and longitude vary in length, for instance, at zero degrees latitude, the length of 1 degree of latitude is 68.70 miles while the length of 1 degree of longitude is 69.17 miles. At a latitude of 50 degrees, the length of 1 degree of latitude is 69.12 miles while the length of 1 degree of longitude is 44.55 miles. At a latitude of 90 degrees, the length of 1 degree of latitude is 60.41 miles while the length of a 1 degree of longitude is zero. Moreover, prior advanced technical knowledge is required for effective use of the system as a tool for learning political geography facts and this limits the system's widespread utility as an aid to forming a picture of the general location of a political unit.
A second, less technically sophisticated, way of locating a place is to describe that place's position in relation to some other known point of reference, i.e., central, outermost, etc. Cardinal directions are also used in this regard. Distance in terms of number of miles from, meters to. etc., constitutes another way of locating a place or thing. But distance offers a number of disadvantages and limited advantages as a locational aid. A fourth way of locating a place or thing, however, is to describe it in terms of its natural setting or shape and this generates a type of landmass system for locating a place. Each of these ways aid in determining where or how something is situated relative to some fixed point of reference and, hence, are referred to herein as "locators."
There are, of course, a number of branches or subfields in the science of geography. The three major subfields are: physical geography; biotic geography; and human geography. Human geography includes political geography, social geography, cultural geography, urban geography, economic geography, rural geography, settlement geography, geography of religions, geography of languages geography of factories and types of manufacturing, geography of political boundaries, and so forth. Cultural geography emphasizes the distribution of patterns in human ways of being or living. Political geography is a branch of topical geography that emphasizes the distribution of patterns in the Earth's political sovereignties, units, or countries.
This brief overview suggests that geography is a vast field of intellectual endeavor and this means that, theoretically, an almost infinite variety of geography playing card decks are possible. This vastness and variety provide the context for understanding geography playing card deck development.
Geography Playing Card Decks
The first deck of geography cards is said to have been produced in Nuremberg, Germany in 1640 A.D. (Tilley: 1973). This first deck was followed by the famous, Le Jeu de la Geographie, produced in France in 1643 for a young, academic disinterested, Louis XIV. These two decks were followed by a flood of geography playing card decks, with over 50 different types of decks being produced detailing the following, century. Ingenious ways were found to superimpose geographical information onto the cards of the standard deck. The vast majority of the decks would devote one suit of the standard deck to one of four continents. The physical geographical information framework of "continent" would then be used to provide varying units of human geographical information. Most of the decks used political geography as a proxy for culture with cultural geography information dominating the cards of the standard deck. Thus in most of the decks, emphasis is on teaching about cultural variety as opposed to teaching about political geography, per se.
In the typical European model, one of the standard suits is devoted to one continent with each card providing a variety of information about one country of the continent. The Winstanley Geography Card Deck, Four Parts of the World (England, 1675) is a prominent example. The Winstanley cards gives information on dress or costumes of countries; "habits and fruitfulness" of the people of the lands; describes the general location of the continent, textually and gives the general location numerically, as well, using lines of latitude and longitude; and provides a brief historical overview of the country and continent.
Passive Learning Theory of Standard Suited Geography Playing Card Decks
Although adding, varying kinds and amounts of geographical information to cards, inventors using the standard deck to convey geographical information, are, in essence, subscribing to a passive theory of learning. The assumption of the theory is that repeated use of standard suited geography playing cards for say, a game of poker or rummy, will result in passive learning. That is, repetitive exposure to geographical information on the front or back side of the cards will cause the player to notice, remember, or "learn" the information. All standard suited geography playing card decks follow the basic format of adding units of geographical information, including pictures and/or maps, to the cards of the standard deck.
Theoretical and Practical Problems
A major problem with the standard suited geography playing card approach, however, is that it combines geographical information with standard suit markings. The two sets of information are unrelated and the combination is unproductive, educationally. That is, despite the presence of geographical information on the cards, the information actually needed and used to play, say a game of poker or Rummy, is the information provided by standard suit markings and this information is not at all related to the geographical information contained on the card.
A related problem stems from the fact that the fun and excitement of most card combination card games lies in the challenge of making the spread. As such, during game play, player attention is directed to acquiring the cards, bearing the standard suit marks, that will help him in developing the desired combination of cards. Attention is not necessarily on the geographical information contained on the card. Now, given scenarios of either no exposure to geographical information during card play or some exposure to geographical information during game play, some exposure may be preferable to none. Even so, the presence of standard suit markings actually directs player attention away from the geographical information contained on the card. Thus, standard suited geography playing cards are not very efficient instruments for learning about geography.
A related difficulty lies in the fact that the combination of geographical information with standard suit markings, with reliance on standard suited markings for game play, tends to diminish excitement and interest in geography on its own terms. The informational value of the geographical information on the cards not only seems quite dull, but actually has no value, in the context of a playing a standard game of Poker or Rummy using a standard suited deck. In contrast, the informational value of standard suit markings, during card play, is extremely high. Thus, the standard suited approach establishes two classes of information, information used for the fun of play and information that the player might find interesting when the player is not engaged in actual play of the game. The implication is that learning, per se, is not fun. Therefore, the approach tends to foster and perpetuate a less than positive player attitude toward learning, in general, and geographical knowledge, in particular, if the geographical information is noticed at all. This suggests that the standard suited approach to geography playing cards is not only an inefficient instrument for teaching/learning, political geography facts but may also be counterproductive relative to fostering positive attitudes toward learning, in general, and geography, in particular.
In addition fairly large amounts of predominantly cultural and economic information are condensed to flit the space constraints of the cards. Political geography facts are given short shrift, overshadowed by the relatively large amounts of information on the cards. But even where cards contain smaller amounts of geographical information, the unrelatedness, diminutive, and player distraction issues discussed above are not overcome.
Finally, a number of standard suited geography playing card decks use geographical information to amuse players as a further enticement to deck purchase. Unfortunately, the amusement value is frequently obtained at the expense of valuing teaching/learning about political geography facts, as valuable in their own right. This further exacerbates the aforementioned problems.
An Alternative Model For Geography Playing Card Decks
The above critique suggests that from an educational perspective, the ideal geography playing card would not contain any standard suit markings at all. The ideal geography playing card would, instead, be suited on fundamental geographical concepts. Suiting on geographical concepts provides card users with clear focus and structured framework for further learning and study. Moreover, the cards of the ideal deck would only bear a few units of related geographical information. The units of information, contained on the cards, would serve as the elements of the larger concept being represented by the suit. Ideally, the units of information would be adequate to play adaptations of a number of popular card-combination games. Thus, in the ideal deck, cards would bear only needed, or reinforcing units of information that facilitate the adaptation to the play of popular card games.
When the geographical data contained on the playing card is the information that is needed to, say make a spread in a card-combination game, or reinforces the information needed to make the spread; player attention is redirected from standard suit-markings and card values and the player is forced to focus directly on the geographical information on the card. Player exposure to geographical information is thereby maximized because the player is using the information in order to play the card game. This is extremely conducive to learning. But, such a deck is not easy to construct.
Even so, a few such non-standard decks have been invented that reflect this approach, more or less. Such decks have been suited on location, or more specifically, directional locators. The decks appear to aim to teach bind serve as globe or map locational aids. Unfortunately these decks have failed the long-term endurance test, passed with flying colors, by the standard deck. Understanding the strengths, weaknesses, and problems associated with such decks may be instructive. Attention now turns to these inventions.
Early Locational Suited Geography Playing Card Decks
In 1770, a locational aid type of geography playing card deck Giuaco Geogrtfaco dell `Europe (Geografico) was released in Italy. Geografico is the first date-documented deck of directional suited geography playing cards. The last major group of suits in the Maj Jong Card Decks of China is called the Four Winds Group which has suits: North, South, East, and West. There are four or five cards in each of the Four Winds suits. Although Maj Jong Cards are known to be very old, the exact date for the invention of the Sour Winds suit is unclear (Wowk, 1983:120). Because the Four Winds suits are not structured to be locational aids, analysis herein is focused on Geografico.
Giuaco Geografico dell `Europe
In (Geografico, the deck represents the Continent of Europe. Suits represent regional divisions of Europe. Cards represent the major kingdoms located within the region being represented by the suit. Suit names are "Nord, Sud, Centro, and Isole." The suit names serve as locators for the kingdoms but deck structure emulates the 52-card, 4-suit, 13 cards per suit structure of the standard deck. Suit cards are numbered sequentially from 1 to 13.
Invented 130 years after the first deck of geography cards, Geogrcafico is the first truly political geography card deck. Deck elements, suiting scheme, and naming convention suggest that the object of the deck was to teach fundamental political geography. The emulation of the structure of the standard deck suggests that another object was to provide a deck of political geography cards that could be readily adapted to the play of card games normally played with the standard deck. There are several problems with the deck, however. To capture Geografico's problems, adequately, requires reconsideration of the role of locators.
The Ideal Locators
In addition to locating a thing by its directional position, it is also, of course, possible to locate a place or thing using the locators discussed earlier. Geografico illustrates the use of multiple types of locators in its use of the position locator "central" and type of landmass locator, "island." What the locator does is to assist in ferreting out or spotting the thing or identifying a thing. The locator does this by providing some sort of clue about the thing's distinguishing features or how the thing is situated relative to something else. The ideal locator is, of course, parsimonious but descriptively precise as possible. The ideal locator for suiting geography card decks will build on existing user knowledge levels as well. In reality, however, there will be some sort of trade-off and finding the "right" balance and blend of locators has been part of the difficulty in developing locator suits for geography playing cards.
Geografico's Locators
Geografico can be described as multifaceted in terms of the number and type of locators utilized. But, its single most dominant feature is a terse one-term naming convention. The naming convention is a reflection of the underlying suit configuration scheme. Geografico's directional suits are configured on the cardinal points of the compass, only; and therefore, Geografico is constrained to four compass points or only one facet of direction, the cardinal directions. Thus, although suit names reflect that the underlying suit configuration is a mix of three different facets of location, direction, position, and type of landmass, Geografico's most dominant feature is its use of an extremely concise, uni-faceted naming convention. This uni-faceted naming system severely compromises the overall informational value of the deck because the uni-faceted naming system severely constrains the descriptive value of the directional suits as conveyors of locational information. Moreover, even though three different facets of location are described (direction, position, and landmass type) these locators are also single faceted. Thus, the most apt description of the deck is that it is dominated by a uni-faceted suit configuration and suit naming convention.
Another problem for Geografico's is that its overall size is insufficient to devote a card to each major political unit of its day. In other words, the inventor was forced to rearrange and/or exclude some of the major political units of his day, in order to accommodate the four-suit, 13-card per suit, 52 card structure of the standard deck. This forcing may explain why at least one critic commented that the deck "moved" one kingdom from Ireland to Scotland.
A third and final observation about Geogiafico is that it is difficult to discern a unifying, theme the underlying, the assignment of the value to the cards. Simply numbering the cards from 1-13 as a way of imitating the structure of the standard deck, is also a type of forcing. The assignment of values in the standard deck is thought to be representative of the social structure of its day. Therefore, at the time of the standard deck's introduction, a readily understood, generally agreed upon, and fairly well accepted theme underlay the assigning of higher rank or value to some cards of the deck. The value assignment scheme had a meaning that was readily understood and acknowledged by almost all card users. But, how does citizen A of the kingdom assigned to card No. 2 relate to Geografico? Suppose citizen A rates his/her kingdom as being superior to all of the kingdoms assigned to cards Number 3 through 10? The point here is that assigning fixed values or ranks to cards representing political units has the potential to create some very thorny problems.
Despite these weaknesses, however, from a geographical education perspective, Geogrcqfico has three major strengths. First, Geografico is the first truly location-based geography playing card deck that suits the cards of the deck predominantly on directional locators. The suiting scheme also transforms the cards of the deck into educational aids that teach political geograplhyfacts in a fairly straightforward manner. Second, the deck uses a large landmass as a point of reference (the Continent of Europe). Third, Geografico attempts to employ the suiting scheme that would seem to be a "natural" one for a deck of geography playing cards. Unfortunately, effectively implementing this "natural" scheme proves to be a feat that is too difficult for Geografico to accomplish.
Non-Standard Suited U.S. Patented Geography Playing Card Decks
With these observations in mind, attention now turns to a more cursory examination of five non-standard suited geography playing card decks covered under U.S. issued patents. In the U.S., the first patent for a deck of geography playing cards issued in 1876. Between the issuance of the first patent and December, 1996; about 35 or so U.S. patents covering playing cards containing geographical information have issued. Of the 35 or so patents, only the five examined herein are non-standard suited decks. Of particular interest about each of the five decks is what is being suited; how the suiting is achieved, whether and/or how a value or ranking is assigned to the cards, and the suit naming convention employed for card use.
Miller (1924, U.S. Pat. No. 1,489,541) suits on the stops of a geographic travel route. Miller's focus, however, is on distance in terms of miles. Thus, Miller's deck is excluded from further analysis.
Branch (1918, U.S. Pat. No. 1,273,024) seems to suit on sections of the United States. Branch never explicitly states this suiting, however. Rather, Branch tells the reader that his suit symbols are red marks, white marks, blue marks, stars, and stripes and that these symbols correspond to point numbers on the cards.
In addition to 28 other units of information, Branch uses either a directional or name of place landmass locator on his game cards. The cards are "inscribed with the name of a political division, a word indicating the section in which said political division is located, and also a number indicating the relative rank of said political division and also indicating the point value of said card, said number being distinctive in appearance and said card also having a suit symbol which corresponds with the distinctively indicated point number." The directional and name of landmass locators used by Branch are: "Southern, New England, Central, Northern, and Western" as the "word" indicating) the section of the United States to which the political division belonged. Branch also provides the names of the states or political divisions bordering the state or political division represented by his card and uses directional locators of "n, s, e, and w" to indicate the relative position of the states or political divisions bordering the state represented by his game card.
Higgins (1905, U.S. Pat. No. 787,295) groups his pack of U.S. Presidential Election cards by dividing "the forty-five States . . . into four groups, the groups being designated `North,` South,` `East,` and `West,` and each group . . . printed in a different color from the others . . . wherein . . . a red card indicating the `East` group . . . blue, indicating the `West` group; green, indicating the `North` group; and . . . purple, indicating the `South` group. Although grouping on direction, Higgins suits on the States because his interest is in counting electoral college votes. Color coding his cards, to indicate to which group a suit belongs, Higgins' cards bear the name of one of the 45 States, names of 4 cities in that state, and the number of electoral college votes to which the State is entitled. Higgins' limits the units of information on his cards to six units and thus, the cards do not overwhelm would be users with information.
Dealy (1887, U.S. Pat. No. 357,184) suits his U.S. Politics Deck of cards on the four leading political parties contending in the Presidential election of 1884. Each card represents a U.S. State. Dealy provides between 3-17 units of information about the State's electoral politics on each card but otherwise ignores location and direction. Thus. Dealy's deck is also being excluded from further analysis.
Read (1880, U.S. Pat. No. 229,914) suits his U.S. Geography Cards "by means of parallels of latitude" and then uses lines of Longitude to subdivide the cards into smaller groups. More specifically Read says that the suits of his deck were "designated by the line of latitude passing through or near the States or Territories in that suit." He states further that he then divided the cards "into groups which are distinguished by the different lines of longitude which passes over or near the State or Territory." The names of the states comprising the smaller group are given on the card in addition to 12 other units of information. A map of the state of interest is provided which shows the states bordering the state of interest, as well. The value or rank of the card in any one suit is determined by the population of the state represented by the card.
The only indication of the use of direction on Read's cards is a "W," on the drawing. In fact, no suit names of any sort are provided for use in play. The number of the line of longitude that links the three other states of the smaller groups is placed top-center of the card. The number "260" is given. Read's method is not very helpful for a number of reasons. Ignoring that most maps and globes give longitude in terms of 1-180 degrees east or west of the prime meridian, the number does not readily aid the card user in impression formation or in the formation of a picture of the general location of a specific political subdivision or area such as the State of Ohio. Moreover, Read only uses two lines to configure his suits. The deck would have benefited from the use of four lines, two longitudes and two latitudes in order to form general areas. If Read had employed four lines instead of two, the method would have yielded fairly contiguous blocks or land areas that could be more easily located on a map or globe. The fact that his method yields a group of States comprised of Ohio South Carolina, North Carolina, and Kentucky, only adds to a general state of confusion.
Non-suited U. S. Patented Decks Containing Directional and/or Locational Information
A number of the non-suited geography card decks also provide directional and/or locational information on their cards. How this information is organized and presented provides a further indication of the need for the present invention.
Wells (1919: U.S. Pat. No. 1,292,184) uses the cards in his. Geography Card Game, deck to represent U.S. States. Each card represents one state and shows a map of the state along with the states that border the state of interest.
Scholz (1918: U.S. Pat. No. 1,269,320) uses the cards of his deck to represent different political divisions. Each card contains a map and the name of one of the political divisions or the name of a body of water contiguous to a plurality of the other political divisions or bodies of water, the names of all contiguous political divisions or bodies of water, the population of the political division represented, a simple number denoting points based on the population of the political division represented or arbitrary assignment of points for the bodies of water. The cards also show the names of the contiguous political divisions and bodies of water, with their general direction, relative to the political division of interest, indicated by directional locator terms "north, east, south, west."
Tercy (1915: U.S. Pat. No. 1,123,622) also uses the cards of his deck to represent U.S. States. Each card represents a state and has the names of bordering states in the margins of the card. The names of the bordering states are placed on the card margins corresponding to the directional position of the border state, i.e. the top margin contains the name of the state or states that on the are north border of the state represented by the card.
Wade (1905: U.S. Pat. No. 791,118) uses a set of leading cards which represent a geographical division of a country and contains data pertaining to the geographical division. A set of switch cards is also used. Some of the switch cards represent a boundary of the country and some represent a river of the country. The switch cards also contain data pertaining to such boundary or river.
McGeorge and Batiks (1893: U.S. Pat. No. 506,648) also use their card deck to represent a country. Each card has the name of the states or territories of the country represented by the card. The area of the state is given in square miles. The state's population and number of counties are also given. The names of all adjoining or contiguous states, or those which bound the state are also placed on card margins in positions that correspond to the true general directional position of the boundary state.
The Quest For Locational Suits
Over time, the four cardinal directions of the compass have been found to be fairly good locators, or pointers. These simple directions arc also widely known and understood. This is why directional suiting seems to be such a natural for geography playing cards. But, besides the four cardinal points of the compass a first division of each of the cardinal points produces the inter-cardinal points. A division of the inter-cardinal points produces the intermediate points of the compass and a division of the intermediate points produces a fourth set of points for a total of thirty-two points of the compass in all. Thus, direction has a number of facets. This review has found no evidence, however, of the use of any of these additional facets of direction to suit a deck of geography playing cards. Why this is so can't be known for sure because these points were widely used and well known for many centuries prior to the invention of Geografico.
Conclusions About the State of the Art in Geography Playing Cards
This review of the state of the art in the field of geography playing cards suggests that, in general, a number of gaps exist in the field. Relative to locational suited geography playing cards, the U.S. Patent Record suggests that only unifaceted directional suited card decks have been invented and this single facet is reflected in the suit naming conventions used by the inventors who have attempted location-based suiting.
Location-Suited Decks
Read (1880) uses a locational suiting scheme based on point intersections of parallels of latitude and lines of longitude and then imposes a unifaceted naming convention onto the system. The organizational value of the point intersections as a method for configuring suits proved to be inadequate. For example the method resulted in a suit group comprised of Ohio, W. Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The inadequacy of Read's method is rendered even acute by Read's attempt to use lines of longitude numbers in lieu of a suit naming convention. This attempt requires users to have a thorough grounding in, or study of, the grid address system before being able to enjoy using the cards. This places the deck out of reach for far too many potential users.
Higgins (1905) employs a unifaceted directional scheme to group the suits of his deck but avoids the suiting on location problem by relying instead on a color coding scheme to distinguish between his groups and by suiting on States, instead. With each of his 45 State suits being comprised of four cards each. The Higgins deck of 1905 had a total of 180 cards. If produced to accurately reflect today's Federal Union, the deck would now have a total of 200 cards|
Branch (1918) provides unifaceted directional information on his cards, and may have even suited by the single facet, but Branch superimposes a patriotic suit symbol convention onto his unitaceted directional suiting scheme. This obfuscates the locational value of the suiting scheme because the symbols used lack the descriptive value to sustain them as locators of sections of the
Branch (1918), Higgins (1905) and Read (1880) all actively assign fixed values to each of their cards. Higgins assigns card value based on the number of electoral votes to which a State is entitled; while. Branch and Read assign card value based on a State's population. Higgins' method of assigning, value to cards is limited in its application, however, to only those countries which have an electoral college system of some sort.
Non-Suited Decks
Examination of non-suited geography playing cards containing subdivisions of geographical areas and/or referencing direction has also been instructive. The examination shows that there is a relatively widespread tendency in the field to use maps as a substitute for suiting language. The maps show bordering political units in their directional location to the political unit of interest. Another technique employed is the provision of a list of the names of bordering political units while using the abbreviations "n, s, e, and w," to indicate the directional location of these bordering political units relative to the political unit of interest has been identified. These efforts are indicative of the need for a predominantly directional, locator based suiting scheme for geography playing cards.
Need For A Viable Locator Suiting Scheme and Naming Convention
The above practices express inventor's efforts to locate the areas of interest within some larger, but intermediate locational system. That is, inventors have intuitively understood that some sort of intermediate point of reference needs to be conveyed to card users. Unfortunately for the art and considering the high level of creativity demonstrated in that art, how to develop and implement a language based locational suiting system in geography playing card decks is not very apparent.
Part of the difficulty lies in boundaries of political units that do not easily form neat horizontal and vertical lines and do not line up in neat horizontal rows and column. In other words. The landmass areas occupied by various political units vary widely in shape and size as does the number of political units located in one general area. These conditions help to explain why most geography playing card deck inventors have foregone the non-standard suiting effort completely. That is, over time, most inventors have relied on the structure of the standard playing card deck for a broad organizational structure thereby avoiding the suiting on location problem. A few inventors have attempted to institute a locational or directional suiting scheme. However, these schemes relied on the cardinal points of the compass, only tapping only one major facet of direction, the cardinal directions.
Thus, directional locators used in Geografico's, Branch's, and Higgins' decks arc all constructed too narrowly. (Ggeoografico's suits are named too narrowly, as well. Branch fails to institute a suit naming convention, at all. Read's application of earth grid address locators results in locator suits that are too technical and uninformative and his suits are also left, essentially unnamed. Further, the cards of almost all decks examined evoke a sense of information overload. Thus, no effective method for locational suit configuration and no effective suit naming convention had been deployed in political geography playing cards as of December, 1996.
Technological advances in communication and transportation as well as the advent and hegemony of a global economy, make firmer grounding in political geography facts a necessity for today's citizenry. Absence of viable suiting and suit naming mechanisms, however, precludes popular use of geography playing cards as serious educational and entertainment tools, leaving a large void in this field of art.
The present invention fills this void through a novel combination of a number of different techniques. Application of these techniques result in development of the first effective locator suits for geography playing cards. The suit configurations, suit naming convention, system for assigning card values, suit sizes, and overall organizational structure resulting from application of this novel combination are all about, just right.